The main conclusions are formulated, practical recommendations are given and historical lessons are learned.

^ III. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Practical significance of the study is that the diverse analytical material presented in it, scientific conclusions and generalizations can, to a certain extent, have a positive impact both on highlighting the problems of developing the source base of historical research, and on the further development of national history as a whole.

The conclusions, lessons and practical recommendations contained in the dissertation can be used in the development of evidence-based forms and methods of combating prejudice and bias in the coverage of Russian history, in overcoming one-sidedness in assessing many important aspects of the life of the Russian state, striving for objectivity and balance in the coverage of materials containing testimonies of foreigners, in the process of implementing various educational programs and projects, in the course of scientific and methodological research on the problems of national history, in the implementation of training and professional retraining of specialists in the field of teaching history.

The results of the study - factual material, conclusions and recommendations of the author can be used in the preparation of dissertations, as well as new publications - monographs, magazine and newspaper articles, textbooks devoted to the problems of objective coverage of Russian history.

At the same time, taking into account the negative aspects of the practice of the past will help to avoid repeating many mistakes in this area.

The main scientific and practical recommendations come down to the following:

Firstly, noting the undoubted interest that the analysis of Russia by foreigners represents for scientists of various areas of scientific knowledge, it should be emphasized that it is extremely rarely involved in studies on the history of our Fatherland. The bias, or rather, the criticality of foreigners' statements about Russia, was the main reason why these sources have not yet received due recognition. This layer of historical and memoir literature is relatively poorly studied.

In this regard, the author considers it expedient from the standpoint of modern historical science to summarize the array of documentary evidence of eyewitnesses from among foreigners who came to Russia, accumulated to date, and to create on this basis, using modern achievements of historical thought, a number of fundamental scientific works devoted to the study of various aspects of the formation stereotypes of foreigners' perception of Russian history. It is also necessary to expand the scope and improve the scientific basis of publications on this topic. Among the most pressing problems for development at the dissertation level, could be:

Analysis of the works of foreigners of the 18th century from the standpoint of comparing the historical and cultural situation in the West and Russia;

The influence of the ideas of foreigners on the development of Russian social and political thought in the 19th century;

A study of the testimonies of foreigners about the essence of Russia and its historical path in key socio-cultural aspects.

All this, according to the author of the dissertation, will make it possible to develop new approaches to the problem, to make certain adjustments to the prevailing ideas in the West about Russia.

Secondly, the author of the dissertation research believes that since the reports of foreigners telling about Russian history are characterized by a variety of content and ambiguous interpretations, specific historical events and everyday details of the life of Russian society are considered by different eyewitnesses who visited Russia, subjectively, depending on their personal worldview, there is a need to develop based on the latest achievements of domestic and foreign historical thought, common approaches and criteria for determining the degree of reliability of the information contained in them.

In this regard, the development of a new scientifically based concept of the search for objectivity in the coverage of Russian history is an urgent task for Russian science.

Such a concept will make it possible to create a science-based state policy that meets the requirements of our days for the formation of the historical consciousness of Russian citizens in the period of building a state of law and creating a civil society in the Russian Federation.

In this regard, it seems appropriate to support the practice of holding the annual All-Russian scientific and practical conference of historians and teachers on the basis of the Russian State Social University "Historical education in modern Russia: development prospects" with the invitation of representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Communications and mass communications of the Russian Federation, as well as with the invitation of representatives of the State Duma Committee on Education and Science.

Thirdly. The mass media should purposefully cover little-known and little-studied pages of Russian history, using the method of “humanizing” the events of the past, that is, showing them through the actions of specific individuals; to promote the process of a new understanding of the entire Russian historical path. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to scientifically search for the most modern information and communication technologies that would provide wide access to the funds of state archives, make information about specific events and the life of Russian society more transparent and accessible.

Fourth. The author of the dissertation believes that, despite the preparation and publication of a fairly large number of versions of history textbooks, their authors are very far from using the modern methodology of historical knowledge.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that while academic science was scrupulously looking for “new approaches” to the study of history, political journalism succeeded in all kinds of reassessments of historical phenomena, events and facts, historical figures, discrediting some events and personalities, undeservedly raising others, struggling with some myths. by creating others. All these "rewriting" and re-evaluation of history had not harmless consequences. As sociological studies have shown, the publication in the media of many similar materials on historical topics has reduced the number of students who are proud of the historical past of their Fatherland.

To solve this problem, according to the dissertation candidate, it is necessary to create such an information base that would be able to serve not only to improve the methodological culture of history teachers, but also to significantly improve the quality of teaching students and graduate students, the formation of a correct historical consciousness in them, and hence the education of conscious patriots of Russia.

Fifth. An important direction of the modern state policy of the Russian Federation is the formation of high civic qualities among young people and workers. A major event in such a case could be, in the opinion of the author of the study, the widespread promotion in our country of the high cultural heritage of the multinational Russian society.

The conclusions drawn above allow us to present the following historical lessons:

^ Lesson One- despite the fact that the interest of domestic historians in the works of foreigners was limited, due to a sufficient number of domestic sources, especially on the history of Russia in the 18th century, prominent Russian historians and researchers still used these works before the revolution. However, their approach was mainly of a purely utilitarian nature: extracting facts and confirmations for their hypotheses and filling in “blank spots” where there were no domestic sources or they were fragmented.

^ Lesson Two- the image of Russia in the West was formed largely thanks to the works written by contemporaries. Official domestic sources often did not record, which seemed insignificant to a Russian person, but were of great interest to foreigners.

^ Lesson Three- the image of a foreigner in Russian perception is ambiguous and has many historical shades. The differences between the Christian and Catholic churches gave rise to a certain misunderstanding and distrust of each other. Ignorance of foreign languages ​​created an insurmountable barrier in communication. Differences in national characters and customs often took the form of rejection of each other, which sometimes could develop into open hostility.

^ Lesson Four- the transition to a new level of using foreign sources about our country, as a means for studying the interaction between the peoples of Russia and European countries, was largely carried out by Western science, which, before domestic, realized the need for a different use of these valuable sources.

^ Lesson five- the accumulation of factual material in itself does not add anything to the understanding of the past without its explanation. According to P.Ya. Chaadaev, no matter how many facts accumulate, they “will never lead to complete certainty, which can only be given to us by a method of grouping, understanding and distribution” 123 .

Thus, the study of the chosen problem, as well as the conclusions, lessons and practical recommendations presented based on its results, testify both to the significant positive experience accumulated by historical science in objectively covering the most important events and phenomena of Russian history, and to serious shortcomings in this area. And most importantly, they talk about the need for further improvement of interstate historical and cultural interactions in the conduct of scientific research. This will ensure the creation of appropriate conditions for the further development of Russia and an adequate perception of its history in the West.

^ IV. APPROBATION OF RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ON THE TOPIC

Approbation of the dissertation. The main ideas of the dissertation were tested, received a positive assessment from the teaching staff of the Department of the History of the Fatherland of the Russian State Social University. The conclusions and provisions of the study were repeatedly stated by the author in scientific reports and reports at scientific and practical conferences, round tables.

1. 
   Medinsky V.R. "Notes on Muscovy" by Sigismund Gerbershnein // Social policy and sociology. No. 2. 2011. - S. 13-20.
2. 
   Medinsky V.R. "Notes on Muscovy" by Sigismund Gerbershnein as a source on the political history of the first half of the 16th century // Uchenye zapiski RGSU. No. 2. 2011. - S. 36-46.
3. 
   Medinsky V.R. On the origins of the myth of the age-old Russian drunkenness // Uchenye zapiski RGSU. No. 1. 2010. - S. 19-22.
4. 
   Medinsky V.R. The Russian State of the 16th Century in the Writings of the British // Uchenye zapiski RGSU. No. 11. 2010. - S. 16-20.
5. 
   Medinsky V.R. Two images of Basil III in the writings of Paul Jovia // Uchenye zapiski RGSU. No. 3. 2011. - S. 35-40.
6. 
   Medinsky V.R. Why Was Matvey Mekhovsky's "Treatise on Two Sarmatians" Created // Social Policy and Sociology. No. 1. 2011. - S. 147-153.
7. 
   Medinsky V.R. View of Europeans on the events of the Time of Troubles in Russia // Social Policy and Sociology. No. 10. 2010. - P. 180-186.
8. 
   Medinsky V.R. Foreigners about the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible // Social policy and sociology. No. 11. 2010. - P. 156-162.
9. 
   Medinsky V.R. The writings of Margeret, Paerle and the Polish version of the events of the Time of Troubles // Social Policy and Sociology. No. 9. 2010. - P. 142-148.
10. 
    Medinsky V.R. The writings of Barbaro and Contarini on the Russian state in the second half of the 15th century // Social policy and sociology. No. 4. 2011. - P. 160-166.

11. Medinsky V.R. The Russian state of the time of Vasily III in the Notes on Muscovy by S. Herberstein. Monograph. - M., 2009. - 156 p.

1. 
   Medinsky V.R. The first impressions of Europeans about the Russian state. Monograph. - M., 2011. - 148 p.
2. 
   Medinsky V.R. Foreigners about Muscovy on the eve of Petrine reforms. Monograph. – M.: RGSU, 2010. – 180 p.
3. 
   Medinsky V.R. Russia in the first half of the 17th century in the work of Adam Olearius. Monograph. - M., 2009. - 150 p.
4. 
   Medinsky V.R. Problems of objectivity in European coverage of Russian history in the second half of the 15th – 17th centuries. Monograph. – M.: RGSU, 2010. – 380 p.

1. 
   Medinsky V.R. Did God offend or are they to blame? // Strategy of Russia. 2006. No. 3. - S. 34-36.
2. 
   Medinsky V.R. Spiritual component // Strategy of Russia. 2006. No. 5. - S. 18-19.
3. 
   Medinsky V.R. What mythology do we need // Science and religion. 2008. No. 2. - S. 2-7.
4. 
   Medinsky V.R. The disease is severe, but curable // Science and religion. 2008. No. 4. - S. 8-11.
5. 
   Medinsky V.R. Far from Moscow, or Russia without myths // Science and Religion. 2009. No. 4. - S. 11-12.
6. 
   Medinsky V.R. Scoundrels and PR geniuses from Rurik to Ivan III the Terrible. - St. Petersburg - Moscow - Nizhny Novgorod - Voronezh: Peter, 2009. - 316 p. (1000 years of Russian PR).

1 ^ Zamyslovsky E.E. Herberstein and his historical and geographical news about Russia. - St. Petersburg, 1884; Messages of Western foreigners of the XVI-XVII centuries. on the celebration of the sacraments in the Russian Church. - Kazan, 1900; Bochkarev V.N. Muscovy State of the 11th-17th centuries. according to contemporaries-foreigners. - St. Petersburg, 1914, Second ed. - M., 2000; Morozov A.L. Brief news about Muscovy at the beginning of the 17th century. - M., 1937; Levinson N.R. Ayrman's Notes on the Baltic States and Muscovy // Historical Notes. 1945. No. 17; Skrzhinskaya V.Ch. Barbaro and Contarini about Russia. - L., 1971; Sevastyanova A.A. Jerome Horsey's Notes on Russia // Issues of Historiography and Source Studies: Proceedings of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. IN AND. Lenin. - M., 1974; Limonov Yu.A Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Notes of Captain Marzharet. - M., 1982; Rogozhin N.M. Foreign diplomats about Russia in the 16th-17th centuries // Driving through Muscovy (Russia in the 16th-17th centuries through the eyes of diplomats). - M., 1991; Russia in the first half of the 16th century: a view from Europe. - M., 1997; Russia and the world through each other's eyes: from the history of mutual perception. Issue. 1-3. - M., 2000, 2002, 2006.

2 The principle of scientific character is a description, explanation and prediction of the processes and phenomena of reality (historical events) on the basis of discovered scientific laws. - Russian encyclopedic dictionary: in 2 books. - M.: BRE, 2001 - S. 1027; Soviet encyclopedic dictionary. - 3rd ed., M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1984. - S. 863.

3 The principle of historicism is an approach to reality (nature, society, culture, history) as becoming (changing) and developing in time. - Russian encyclopedic dictionary: in 2 books. - M.: BRE, 2001 - S. 599; Soviet encyclopedic dictionary. - 3rd ed., M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1984. - S. 510.

4 Objective - that which belongs to the object itself, objective, independent of subjective opinion and interests (from the subject, exists outside and independently of human consciousness). - Russian encyclopedic dictionary: in 2 books. - M.: BRE, 2001 - S. 1098; Soviet encyclopedic dictionary. - 3rd ed., M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1984. - S. 911.

5 See: ^ Zhukov E.M. Essays on the methodology of history. - 2nd ed., MSPR. // Answer. ed. Yu.V. Bromley. - M., 1987; Ivanov V.V. Methodological foundations of historical knowledge. - Kazan, 1991; Kovalchenko I.D. Methodology of historical research. - M., 2004; Santsevich A.V. Methodology of historical research. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional // Answer. ed. F.P. Shevchenko. - Kyiv, 1990, etc.

6 Classification (from Latin classis - category, group and facere - to do) as a systematization - 1) a system of subordinate concepts (classes, objects) of any field of knowledge or human activity, used as a means to establish links between these concepts or classes of objects ; 2) a general scientific and general methodological concept, meaning such a form of systematization of knowledge, when the entire area of ​​the studied objects is presented as a system of classes or groups, according to which these areas are distributed based on their similarity in certain properties. - Russian encyclopedic dictionary: in 2 books. - M.: BRE, 2001 - S. 688; New Philosophical Encyclopedia. - M.: Thought, 2001. - T. 2. - S. 255.

7 Problem (from the Greek. problema - task) - everything that needs to be studied and solved; problematic - containing a problem dedicated to the study, resolution of a problem, 2) an objectively arising set of issues, the solution of which is of significant practical or theoretical interest; problematic approach - in scientific knowledge, methods of solving problems that coincide with the general methods and techniques of research. Chronology (from chrono ... and ... ology) - 1) the sequence of historical events in time, 2) an auxiliary historical discipline aimed at studying various systems of chronology in order to more accurately establish the dates of old events and time. - New Philosophical Encyclopedia. - M.: Thought, 2001. - T. 2. - S. 356; The latest encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: AST, 2004. - S. 1339.
Ayrman's Notes on the Baltic States and Muscovy // Historical Notes. 1945. No. 17;

35 Amato J. Italians of the 16th century about Russia // Russia and Italy. Issue. 2. - M. 1996.

36 Backus O. P. Commentaries on Moscovite Affairs by S. von Herberstein // Directory of American Scholars. - Lawrence, 1957; Bergstaesser D. Siegmund von Herberstein // Neue Deutsche Biographie. - Berlin, 1969. - Bd. eight; Cross A. G. Russia under western Eyes. 1517-1825. - London, 1970; Deggeler G. Karl V. und Polen-Litauen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Ostpolitik des spaeten Kaisertums. - Wuerzburg, 1939; Federmann R. Popen und Bojaren. Herbersteins Mission im Kremlin. - Graz; Vienna, 1963; Beobachtungen zu Darstellungsweise und Wahrheits/anspruch in der “Moscovia” Herbersteins // Landesbeschreibungen Mitteleuropas vom 15. bis 17. Jahrhundert. - Koeln, Wien. 1983; Isacenko A.V. Herbersteiniana I. Sigmund von Herbersteins Russlandbericht und die russische Sprache des XVI. Jahrhunderts // Zeitschrift fur Slawistik. - Berlin, 1957; Russo-Polish Confrontation // Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution. - New Brunswick, 1974; Michow H. Weitere Beitrage zur aelteren Kartographie Russlands // Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg. - Hamburg, 1967. - Bd. XXII; Nevinson J. L. Siegmund von Herberstein. Notes on 16th century Dress // Waffenund Kostumkunde. - 1959. - 3. F. - Bd. I (18). - hf. 1-2. - S. 86-93; Siegmund Freiherr von Herberstein Diplomat und Humanist // Oestdeutsche Wissenschaft. Jahrbuch des Ostdeutschen Kulturrates. - Muenchen, 1960. - Bd. VII

37 Gotye Yu.V. Decree. op.

38 Possevino A. Muscovy. - M. 1983.

39 Fletcher D. About the Russian state. - St. Petersburg. 1906.

40 Sevastyanova A.A. Decree. op.

41 Barsov P.P. A detailed description of the travels of the Holstein embassy to Muscovy by Adam Olearius. - M. 1870.

The Insider obtained the full text of the decision of the VAK expert council, which recommended that Vladimir Medinsky be stripped of his Doctor of History degree. We present it in its entirety.

1. The relevance of the general direction of research by V. R. Medinsky - the ideas of foreigners about Russia and Russians and the presentation of these ideas in the writings of foreigners - is undeniable. Stereotypical images of Russia in the public opinion of Western countries were largely formed several centuries ago and in a number of their manifestations, with some variations, exist to this day.

2. The title of the work is “Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history in the second half of the 15th–17th centuries”, which, at the same time, became subject of research(p. 9), should be recognized as incorrect. Such a formulation does not reflect the subject of the dissertation research, since it is too abstract for a historical work. First, it does not mention subject coverage of Russian history (in whose coverage?), it is not clear what or who is being discussed. Secondly, objectivity in covering one state, society, culture, etc. representatives of others (contemporaries of events) is, in principle, not achievable. A professional historian can aspire to it, but not a historical individual who perceives the culture of the Other/Alien. Perception of the Other always subjectively, it is determined by the unconscious values ​​and attitudes of its culture, the historical and cultural environment of the perceiving subject, his individual characteristics, etc. Perception can be scientifically interpreted, but it cannot be judged in terms of "objectivity" and "reliability." The category of reliability is applicable to the assessment of eyewitness information about material inanimate objects, objects, simple facts, but not about people of a different culture and their properties. The author is engaged in "correction" of inaccuracies and "distortions" of the realities of Russian life in the writings of foreigners, not realizing that for this kind of writings they are natural and inevitable, since this is a presentation of impressions and a certain, due to various reasons, in and deniya representatives of another culture.

2. Claimed by V. R. Medinsky purpose of the study: "an analysis of the socio-cultural and socio-economic aspects of the perception of the Moscow state in the testimonies of foreigners" (p. 9) in combined with its chronological framework(“the second half of the 15th–17th centuries – p. 7) does not correspond to the structure of the work. Of the 366 pages of the main text of the dissertation (sections II–V, pp. 69–437), 266 pages (72% of the text) are devoted to the second half of the 15th–16th centuries. Of the remaining 102 pages (section V), 36 pages (pp. 336–372) refer to the Time of Troubles, and only 65 pages (pp. 336–372) are devoted to the period from 1613 to 1700. From the notes of foreigners of this vast, eventful almost century-old period, the author considered only the works of Adam Olearius, Adolf Lisek and Johann Korb, and among the dissertator's attention were dozens of texts, among which are informative and important for research evidence of Augustine Meyerberg, Yakov Reitenfels, Andrei Rode, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's life physician Samuel Collins, Foy de la Neuville, Patrick Gordon, and others. The author does not justify the principle of selecting sources.

4. Formulated by the author scientific problem, which consists in "a generalization of foreign materials concerning the most important aspects of Russian history of the second half of the 15th-17th centuries and the soundness of the evidence for their objectivity" (p. 9), does not stand up to criticism. "Generalization of materials" cannot be a scientific problem, and the end of the phrase - "and the argumentation of the evidence for their objectivity" - remains undisclosed, unclear to the reader.

Ethnocentrism cannot act in science as a criterion of reliability

5. On p. 3 V. R. Medinsky presents his main research principle: “Weighing on the scales of Russia’s national interests creates an absolute standard for the truth and reliability of historical work” (p. 3). Meanwhile, this is a false position, which is in irreconcilable contradiction with the principles of scientificity, objectivity and historicism (their listing in the introductory part of the dissertation, therefore, becomes an empty formality). Ethnocentrism/nation-centrism, in whatever forms it manifests itself, has never acted and cannot act in science as a criterion of reliability or serve as the basis for scientific work striving for objectivity. The criteria for the reliability of historical research are determined by principles and methods that are universal in nature and do not depend on the nationality of the researcher. Another thing is to take into account the national (civilizational) features of the development of the community under study, which must be done for all societies and cultures in order to identify the common and special in their development.

6. In the historiographical section of the work there is no significant amount of modern research on the problem. At the end of XX - beginning of XXI century. a whole series of works by well-known Russian historians (not to mention foreign ones) was written, dedicated to the image of Russia and Russians in the perception of contemporaries, including foreigners, during the period under study (for example, O. G. Ageeva, M. M. Krom, L E. Morozova, V. D. Nazarova, A. I. Filyushkina, A. L. Khoroshkevich, M. Po, etc.). Acquaintance with the historiographical essay shows that the characterization of the works of the predecessors was carried out very selectively. Many studies included in the list of references are not analyzed in the historiographical part of the dissertation; Fundamentally important publications (for example, Herberstein’s “Notes on Muscovy” of 1988 and 2007, fundamental for the study of the topic) are literally devoted to one or two paragraphs each (pp. 44–45); about three pages are allotted to the latest literature on the issue, which has introduced fundamentally new views on the problem and provided first-class examples of publication culture and scientific criticism of the writings of foreigners (pp. 43–46).

Proving that many works of foreigners of the period under study were tendentious, Medinsky does not discover anything new.

7. Proving that many works of foreigners of the period under study were biased, contained unreliable information, were created under the influence of a certain political situation, forming, for the most part, a negative image of the Russian state in the public opinion of their compatriots, etc., V. R. Medinsky did not reveals nothing new. All this has long been known, firmly rooted in the Russian tradition of historical writing, going back in its basic provisions to at least the classic work of V. O. Klyuchevsky “Notes of Foreigners on the Moscow State”. The high degree of subjectivity of such writings (as well as the high degree of subjectivity of any narrative in general) is mentioned in all the basic courses on source studies and the history of Russia taught at the historical departments of our universities. The thesis about continuity, interconnection (sometimes textual), which can be seen in many writings of foreigners about pre-Petrine Russia, about the special influence on the rooting of stereotypes about Russia of S. von Herberstein's Notes on Muscovy, is also textbook for curricula. By stating (on pp. 438-439) that all this is the result of his original research, formulated and proven by him for the first time, V. R. Medinsky misleads readers.

8. The principles of the formation of the source base and the methods of source analysis used by the author are doubtful, and as a result, the whole set of intermediate conclusions that form the basis for the general conclusion of the study.

It is quite natural that in the dissertation of V. R. Medinsky the core of the source base, the main empirical object of his study, are the writings of foreigners about Russia of the specified period; the author himself rightly points to this, calling these sources “main” (p. 51). However, at the same time, he considers it sufficient to use not the compositions themselves, but their translations into Russian. Meanwhile, the doctoral dissertation should use primary sources in the original language from the most serviceable authentic editions. This is all the more important since the dissertation deals with the interpretation impressions Western authors about Russia. Meanwhile, the choice of publications is random. So, for example, the notes of Heinrich Staden were used in the thesis based on the 2002 edition, although by the time the dissertation was being prepared, an academic two-volume edition of this monument was published, edited by E. E. Rychalovsky. Notes by Jacques Margeret "The State of the Russian Empire" are analyzed according to the outdated edition of 1982, and not according to the newest 2007 edited by An. Berelovich, V. D. Nazarov and P. Yu. Uvarov.

The dissertation student tries to evaluate the terminology of the authors of essays about Russia on the basis of free translations

Involving only translations leads to particularly unfortunate consequences where the dissertation tries to evaluate the terminology of the authors of essays about Russia. V. R. Medinsky does not seem to realize that the terms he writes about do not belong to the original texts, but to their translations into modern Russian. So, on p. 184-185, he reproaches Herberstein for calling the prince of the Drevlyans Mal "sovereign", although "he did not have the status of a sovereign." Had the author bothered to refer to the original, he could have seen that the Latin text contains the term princeps, and in German Fü rst. Both words correspond to Russian prince(which is what Mal is called in the annals); thus, "sovereign" is the result of a free translation made by our contemporary, while the author curiously accused Herberstein of using this term.

The intention of V. R. Medinsky to conduct a deep and comprehensive study of the notes of foreigners in comparison with “Russian documentary sources relating to specific events and facts” (p. 8) can be considered promising. Indeed, the problem of verifiability, the verifiability of information contained in a particular source, can be solved only in a contextual cross-comparison. It gives scope for the use of methods of comparative analysis and allows answering a number of questions that are really important within the framework of the stated problem.

The author of the dissertation refers the entire array of sources of Russian origin to the group of additional ones (p. 52) and gives a list of them, combining them according to their type: act material, order documentation, court cases, annals and chronographs, scribes, customs and notebooks, publicistic works of the XVI– 17th century and other narrative sources. Almost all of the listed sources have been published to date, however, V.R. Medinsky notes that he also widely used unpublished archival documents stored mainly in the RGADA and partly in the archive of the St. Petersburg Institute of Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the list of used sources and literature, 13 positions are indicated in the heading "archival sources". But there is reason to believe that V. R. Medinsky hardly worked with the archival files indicated by him. In his essay, on almost four hundred pages of the main text, it is possible to find only 13 references to archival funds that are frankly nominal in nature (pp. 100, 106, 181, 240, 249, 257, 287, 297, 325, 332, 274, 408 and 426). Most often these are "deaf" references to the case or simply to the inventory without indicating the sheets; sometimes - with an indication of the total number of sheets in a storage unit (for example, "RGADA. F. 32. D. 1 (1488-1489). L. 1-204", p. 181). References to specific sheets of the case are given only in five cases. This shows that the author, most likely, did not work with archival documents (his employment in the reading room of the RGADA was not documented) ADAR, but drew the most general information about the information contained in them from the guide to the archive, and at best from the inventories, focusing on the headings of cases or documents available there. There are not even references in the text to some of the archival cases noted in the list of used sources.

With "inaccurate" and "biased" sources, the dissertation does not stand on ceremony

With "inaccurate" and "biased" sources, the dissertation does not stand on ceremony. He can simply state that "it really wasn't like that," without bothering to look for evidence. In other cases, he resorts to a different technique: he uses assessments from the writings of some foreigners as a criticism of the opinions of others, not taking into account that both of them can be equally biased in their judgments. So, for example, while highly appreciating the reliability of S. Herberstein's information about the Russian army (p. 220), the author for some reason recognizes as "unreliable" a similar description of the field camps of the Russian army given by R. Chancellor (p. 234); A. Contarini and G. Perkamot spoke positively about Ivan III, but Herberstein did not, which means that “it is quite obvious that the Austrian diplomat deliberately denigrated Ivan III” (p. 199, 206).

In some cases, such a contrasting of information from different authors looks frankly curious. So, on p. 239 the author writes: “Chancellor's information about poor people is also contradictory. Arguing that "there is no people in the world who would live as beggarly as the poor live here, and that the rich do not take care of them," he at the same time reported on the charitable activities of the monks. In general, Chancellor's data on the existence of beggars and poor people in the Russian state contradict the news of Barbaro and Contarini about a large number of products on Russian markets, which cost mere pennies. As the messages of the authors of the late XV century. about cheap products on the markets can refute the existence of more than half a century later (in the 1550s) in the country of the poor, remains a mystery - the author does not reveal his "logic".

V. R. Medinsky, wishing to prove the groundlessness of certain information given in the notes of foreign authors, often refers to the information contained in the Russian chronicles, probably considering it absolutely reliable and obviously not attaching importance to the fact that the chronicles themselves are a complex source , which needs special source criticism and cross-checking by analyzing sources of a different species. At the same time, he ignores information from other Russian sources if they contradict his theses. For example, repeatedly refuting the false, in his opinion, testimonies of foreigners about the drunkenness of Russian priests (pp. 341, 440, etc.), the dissertator ignores the materials of the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, where this vice of the clergy was recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church itself. Claiming that the Crimeans in 1521 reached only Kolomna, the author refers to the Resurrection Chronicle, ignoring the testimony of a number of others, from which it follows that individual detachments reached the village of Vorobyov near Moscow and the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery. The dissertation student rejects Herberstein's news that the Crimean Khan received a letter with an obligation to pay tribute, although similar information is in the Bit Book, an official document that no foreigner had access to.

9. Some fragments of V. R. Medinsky’s dissertation are a presentation of the conclusions of other researchers, devoid of originality and, moreover, incorrectly executed. So, for example, most of Section III (pp. 182–223) is devoted to an analysis of the factual and interpretive errors of S. Herberstein, despite the fact that such work was carried out by commentators on the 1988 edition of Notes on Muscovy. Retelling the content of the comments, V. R. Medinsky refers not to them, but to the sources of commentators, while not always doing it skillfully. Convicting Herberstein of a desire to give more credibility to his story about the Crimean raid of 1521, V. R. Medinsky writes that the Austrian pointed to receiving information from the Polish ambassadors, “who became his informants.” The dissertation cites the following edition: Russian Historical Library, vol. 35, no. 90, p. 605-607" (p. 223). Turning to the comments in the edition of Herberstein's Notes, we will see that their authors indicate: “The Lithuanian embassy, ​​headed by Bogush Voitkov, was in Moscow from 29 August. to 4 Sept. 1521 ( Sat. RIO. - T. 35. - No. 90. - S. 605-607) ”(See: Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. M., 1988. S. 340). Obviously, V.R. Medinsky, firstly, does not see the difference between the Lithuanian and Polish ambassadors, although at that time Poland and Lithuania, being in a dynastic union, had separate diplomatic departments, and secondly, he confuses two widely known pre-revolutionary serial editions of sources - "Russian Historical Library" and "Collection of the Russian Historical Society", probably simply rewriting the data he misunderstood from the comments to the 1988 edition.

The author believes that at the end of the XV century. there was Ukraine, which "then was called Lithuania"

10. Factual errors in the dissertation are numerous. A number of them are rightly indicated in the appeal letter. But there are quite a few others that can also be considered rude. The author believes that at the end of the XV century. there was Ukraine, which “was then called Lithuania” (p. 87); that Dalmatia at the same time was one of the regions of Yugoslavia (p. 152). He obviously does not see the difference between the white and black clergy when he refutes Herberstein's information about the plight of the Russian priests, recalling that in the 16th century. The Russian Church was a large landowner "and did not need anything" (p. 212). The author reproaches Herberstein for drawing the border between Europe and Asia along the Don (p. 221), not suspecting that this is a tradition dating back to ancient times. He confuses textbook dates (Devlet-Giray's raid on Moscow dates 1570 instead of 1571 - p. 262; the introduction of the oprichnina in 1566 instead of 1565 - p. 265; Ivan III's campaign against Tver in 1520 instead of 1485 - p. 302); claims that the Zemsky order was founded only in the late 1570s. (p. 277), although the first mention of this institution in the category books refers to 1572; refuting the information of J. Fletcher (late 16th century) about the drunkenness of Russians and drawing attention to the fact that alcoholic beverages in Russia could only be produced on major church holidays, i.e. several times a year, reinforces this information with a reference to the Code of 1649 (p. 341), and so on and so forth.

Of course, some shortcomings, errors, inaccuracies, misprints can be in any study. But in the dissertation of V. R. Medinsky, their number goes off scale, being a systemic, qualitative problem.

By popular demand, Vladimir Medinsky publishes a section from his doctoral dissertation “PROBLEMS OF OBJECTIVITY IN THE COVERAGE OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 15th-17th centuries.”

Placing a scientific work in a place as inappropriate for it as LiveJournal imposes a number of restrictions. Even one chapter had to be broken into six parts. Removed about two and a half hundred footnotes to the sources.

And of course, one should not expect the same fascination from the dissertation as from Medinsky's Myths about Russia, which once became the starting point for this work. True, the most interesting period was chosen - the reign of Ivan the Terrible ...

The section analyzes the testimonies of English sailors and diplomats, German envoys about their visit to Muscovy.
In the middle of the 16th century, England became a new diplomatic partner of the Russian state. Relations between countries were established relatively late due to their remoteness from each other and the lack of a safe sea route between them. The waters of the Baltic Sea in the 16th century were controlled by Denmark and Sweden, so the ships of other states could not sail safely on it. In addition, Holland, hostile to her, was on the way of England to the Baltic.
At the beginning of the 16th century, English merchants found themselves in a difficult situation. A blow to their trade was dealt by the discovery by the Portuguese of the sea route to India around Africa. As a result, the Portuguese became a monopoly in the trade in oriental spices in European markets. In addition, the Spanish export of large quantities of silver from America led to a "price revolution". Traditional English goods - cloth, began to cost cheap in Europe.
In order not to go broke, English merchants had to urgently look for new markets for their goods and new routes to the eastern countries. Already in the 20s of the 16th century, the Russian state fell into the sphere of their attention. Researchers suggest that from the work of Pavel Jovius, written from the words of the Russian envoy Dmitry Gerasimov, the British learned about the possibility of getting to India and Iran through the territory of Muscovy. From the Swedes, they became aware of the existence of a sea route to this country along the northern seas. As a result, in 1527, an Anglo-Swedish project arose to find a way to India through the territory of the Russian state. But for several reasons it was not implemented.
In 1548, the "Society of Merchants, Seekers of the Discovery of Countries, Lands, Islands, States and Possessions unknown and hitherto not visited by sea" was created in London. When its authorized capital reached 6 thousand pounds sterling, it was decided to send three ships through the northern seas to distant Muscovy.
For some reason, some researchers believe that the British intended to get into China. But it was unlikely that this could actually be, since they had no information about such a possibility. On the contrary, both from the Swedes and from S. Herberstein's "Notes", published in 1549, it was known about the existence of a northern sea route to Muscovy.
In May 1553, three English ships under the command of Hugh Willoughby set off for their intended target. Of the 116 people who were on them, 11 were merchants. However, the two ships were not so lucky. They got lost in the White Sea and were forced to stay in the ice for the winter. During it, all members of the expedition died of hunger and cold. Later, local coast-dwellers discovered these ships.
Only a ship called "Eduard - a Good Enterprise" under the command of the chief helmsman Richard Chancellor with a crew of 28 people entered the mouth of the Northern Dvina in August 1553 and anchored at the monastery of St. Nicholas. In the Dvina chronicle, this event is recorded on August 24.
From that time on, contacts between England and the Russian state were established and became fairly regular.
Richard Chancellor, as you know, soon received an invitation to Moscow. Tsar Ivan IV cordially greeted him, presented him with all kinds of gifts, and in the spring of 1554, with a letter to King Edward VI, he released him to his homeland. This document stated that English merchants were entitled to free trade throughout the entire territory of the Russian state.
Although Chancellor was robbed by the Dutch on his return journey, his journey was generally regarded in England as a very successful one. As a report, he wrote an essay on the Russian state, which he called "The Book of the Great and Powerful Tsar of Russia and the Grand Duke of Moscow." From the title, one could immediately conclude that its content is exclusively laudatory in relation to the described country. True, he did not have time to finish his work. It was later supplemented by Clement Adams, who was an educated man and taught at the university. With his help, the "Book" was written in Latin.
Queen Mary, who succeeded King Edward, gave permission for the creation in February 1555 of the Moscow Trading Company. It consisted of 6 lords, 22 representatives of the highest nobility and 29 less noble nobles. The board had 1 or 2 governors, 4 consuls and 24 assistants, who were elected for a year or a little more.
All this testified to the great interest of both the British government and the local nobility in contacts with the Russian state.
Richard Chancellor soon went on a second trip to Russia, but died on the way back. In November 1556, his ship was wrecked off the coast of Scotland. In 1557, he was replaced by Anthony Jenkinson, who did not limit himself to visiting Moscow, but began to look for ways to the eastern countries. As a result, he visited the Russian state four times and was able to get to Bukhara and Persia. He described all his trips in separate works. In addition, a special essay was created by its translator R. Best.
English sailor William Barrow mapped the coast of the Barents Sea. His relative Stephen Barrow sailed to Novaya Zemlya in 1556 and made a description of the Barents Sea and its surrounding lands.
Notes about Russia were also written by some British ambassadors. For example, T. Randolph, who traveled to Moscow in 1568 on behalf of Queen Elizabeth, and J. Baus, who discussed with Ivan the Terrible in 1583-1584 the possibility of concluding a military alliance against Poland and Sweden and the question of his marriage to a relative of the English queen.
In 1589, the publisher Hakluyt collected all these writings and published them in the collection "Collection of Early Travels". It came out in London. In the 19th century, this collection was reprinted several times by the Gakluyt Society.
English writings from this collection were first translated and published by S.M. Seredonin. Later Yu.V. Gauthier made a new translation. These texts are used in this work.
The history of relations between England and Russia in the 16th century attracted many researchers. In their writings, they considered various aspects of this topic.
The first in time of writing is the work of Richard Chancellor. Having opened the way to the Russian state, he naturally had to present this country in the most positive way. The first phrases of his work, it would seem, confirm this: "Russia abounds in land and people and is very rich in the goods that it has." Further, the author listed these goods: excellent fish, blubber, furs, fish tooth (walrus tusks), flax, hemp, wax, honey, leather, lard, grain.
Without limiting himself to a simple list, Chancellor indicated in detail in which Russian cities it was most profitable to buy these goods. At the same time, he even named cities that he himself had not been to. So, while in Moscow, he collected additional information that could be of interest to English merchants.
The Englishman also described the settlements that he saw during his trip to Moscow from Kholmogor. At the same time, he noted only positive aspects in each. For example, a large number of people in villages from Yaroslavl to Moscow, vast fields around, sown with grain, active traffic on the roads.
It is quite obvious that this information was unique, since Russian sources of this time do not contain data on the population density of the area between Yaroslavl and Rostov and traffic on the roads. Researchers have data only on landowners, but their fields may not have been cultivated.
On the whole, Chancellor liked Moscow. He even pointed out that in area it is larger than London with the suburbs. But at the same time, he noticed that the houses were erected chaotically and are very fire hazardous, since they are wooden. He also appreciated the beauty of the stone Kremlin, although he emphasized that foreigners were forbidden to view it. Besides, in his opinion, castles in England were better. Apparently, therefore, he did not like the royal palace either - with low ceilings and without luxury.
It should be noted that although Chancellor did not experience much enthusiasm for the Kremlin and the buildings in it, comparing them with similar fortresses and buildings in London, there is no particular criticism in his work. For example, he pointed out that the fortifications are well armed with all kinds of artillery, and 9 Kremlin churches are simply excellent. All this suggests that the English sailor strove to be objective. At that time in the Kremlin, indeed, all the temples were made of stone.
Of particular interest is the reception and feast described by Chancellor at Ivan IV. The Englishman was struck by the luxurious clothes of the tsar’s associates and himself, as well as the abundance of golden dishes on which dishes were served during dinner to all the guests, who were at least 200 people. However, he did not write anything about the quality of the dishes, which many foreigners did not like, and the lack of cutlery. This suggests that Chancellor sought only to tell about the fabulous wealth of the Russian sovereign. It was also important for him that he himself was received with great honor in the royal palace. At home, this was evidence of the importance of his mission to Russia.
Chancellor's description of a reception in the royal palace is often used in the writings of historians, since there are no such data for the middle of the 16th century in any documentary sources. A well-known researcher of the domestic life of Russian tsars, I. Zabelin, noted that detailed descriptions of feasts in the palace date only to the 17th century. The first painting of the royal dishes dates back to 1610-1613. It, according to Zabelin, was compiled for Prince Vladislav.
True, Chancellor noticed that the pomp and richness of the clothes of the king and his courtiers were often ostentatious. Their purpose was to impress foreigners at official receptions, country walks (Chancelor was particularly struck by the overly rich decoration of the royal tent in brocade, velvet, and jewels), and embassies to foreign powers. In ordinary life, in his opinion, "their entire everyday life was mediocre at best."
Despite this ironic remark, Chancellor was forced to admit that the Russian Tsar was sovereign over many countries, "and his power is amazingly great." This was expressed in the fact that the Russian army reached 300 thousand people, all the soldiers were mounted and consisted of nobles who had good weapons and luxurious clothes.
It is likely that the Englishman learned this information from the Russian people. In addition, he could observe the dispatch of three regiments to Astrakhan in the early spring of 1554.
Researchers, however, believe that the number of troops in Chancellor's work is greatly exaggerated. It was slightly more than 100 thousand people, since it consisted of five regiments, each of which did not exceed 20 thousand soldiers.
Although Chancellor had no way of knowing how Russian soldiers behaved in battle, he wrote that "they run around screaming and almost never give battle to their enemies, but act only furtively." Russian sources have different data, so the information of the Englishman seems to be a fiction. This is indicated at least by the fact that the cavalry warriors that made up the Russian army could not run in any way, they were supposed to ride.
Chancellor's story about the harsh lifestyle of Russian soldiers also looks unreliable. According to his writing, they spent the night in the snow by the fire in winter, covering themselves only with a piece of felt. They ate only water with oatmeal. However, from the message of the sailor himself, it followed that there were no ordinary soldiers in the Russian army, it consisted of noblemen. In addition, the king did not wage long wars in the winter.
It is characteristic that this unreliable information was widely disseminated among Europeans and was later used in the writings of other authors, for example, Fletcher.
According to the Englishman, the Russian army was not trained at all in the tactics and strategy of warfare. However, it is known from Russian sources that Ivan IV was very interested in writings about the military campaigns of Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors. He had in his service foreign specialists who helped him carry out military reforms. This was reported by Russian sources and the British themselves, for example, Jenkinson. The researchers found that during the military reforms of 1550-1556, Ivan IV was able to create a powerful and well-trained army, not inferior in quality and numbers to the best European armies of that time.
Not understanding how the Russian army conducted military operations and won (shortly before Chancellor's arrival in Moscow in 1552, Kazan was taken in triumph and the Kazan Khanate was annexed), the Englishman, with typical European snobbery, wrote: “What could come of these people, if they were exercised and trained in the order and art of civilized warfare? If there were people in the lands of the Russian sovereign who would explain to him what was said above ... ".
These statements of Chancellor indicate that he wanted to present the Russian people in the eyes of English readers as barbarians far from civilization, although hardy and unpretentious. According to him, they even looked like young horses, unaware of their strength and allowing small children to control them. By this, he hinted that his compatriots had the opportunity to direct the Russian people in the right direction for themselves and extract the maximum benefit from this.
On the whole, Chancellor had a poor understanding of various aspects of life in the Russian state. For example, he did not understand at all how the tsar paid his subjects for service, believing that the Russian nobility served for free. The salary, in his opinion, was small, received only by foreigners. At the same time, the Russian nobles allegedly had no property at all, unlike the British.
In fact, for the nobles, the payment for service was estates, which, indeed, were temporary land holdings. At the same time, many representatives of the highest nobility had hereditary possessions - estates. They remained in their property even when they left the service. In addition, for successful and long-term service, the sovereign could welcome the estate to the estate to the nobleman.
It can be noted that many of the data about the Russian army and the fact that Russian nobles serve without pay and are very unpretentious in everyday life in Chancellor's work are similar to what Herberstein wrote about this. Therefore, the assumption suggests itself that this information was borrowed from the "Notes on Muscovy" by the Austrian. But it is unlikely that the author of the "Book of the Great and Powerful ..." did it himself. It is known that shortly after returning to his homeland, Chancellor again went to Russia. In a short time he could not compose a detailed essay about his first journey. He could not complete it later, because he died on the way back. All these borrowed additions were most likely inserted into the original text by Clement Adams.
At first it was thought that Adams was a companion of Chancellor. But then A.I. Pliguzov found out that this man had never been to Russia. He was born about 1519 at Buckington and died in 1587 at Greenwich. In 1536 he graduated from college in Cambridge and from 1539 became his teacher. In 1554, Adams was approached by R. Eden and asked to describe the journey of Richard Chancellor. He went to London to the famous navigator, and after several conversations with him, he compiled an essay in Latin called New English Travels to Muscovy. In 1555, Eden included it in a collection with other similar works and published it.
It is likely that it was Adams who had to complete Chancellor's unfinished work. He apparently took all the missing information from the writings of other travelers to Muscovy. This explains the similarities between Herberstein's "Notes" and "The Book" in a number of subjects, for example, in the section on justice. In both works it is noted that in the Russian state criminals were rarely executed even for serious crimes. The judges tried to conduct an investigation, called witnesses. If the case was controversial, then it was decided with the help of a duel.
A significant similarity between the writings of Herberstein and Chancellor is also found in the narrative of the extreme poverty of many Russian people. To prove his veracity, the Austrian wrote that they raised peels and peelings of melons, onions and garlic thrown by his servants. As already noted, with an abundance of cheap food, the Russian people did not need to do this.
Chancellor, imitating Herberstein, reported that the poor ate rotten fish and herring pickle. In this case, the Englishman, like other foreigners, misunderstood the custom of northern peoples to eat slightly rotten fish.
The information of the Englishman that the Russian people were by nature prone to deceit should also be included among the borrowed ones. Only severe beatings kept them from this. Herberstein wrote about this similarly, without any examples or proofs. Therefore, there is hardly any reason to trust this information.
In addition to borrowed unreliable facts, false information can also be found in the "Book of the Great and Powerful .." Among them is a story allegedly heard from a Russian man that he likes to live in prison, because there you can get food and clothing without working.
In fact, in the 16th century there were no such prisons in the Russian state at all. Prisoners could be placed under guard in some room when ordered or made by an official to guard him in his own house. At the same time, the accused was obliged to eat and dress at his own expense. If he did not have relatives and friends, then he could die of hunger. At the expense of the treasury, only state criminals were kept very poorly, most of whom, as a rule, were sent to remote monasteries or cities under the supervision of bailiffs or local governors. All this can be learned from the investigation files of that time. One of the most high-profile was the case of the Romanovs. From it you can find out that F.N. Romanov and his wife were tonsured monks, their children and relatives were sent to prison at Beloozero under the supervision of bailiffs. At the same time, the king had to personally order that they be allocated funds for clothing and food. Later they were transferred to their own fiefdom. Mikhail was exiled to Siberia, where an earthen prison was dug for him. In it, he died of hunger and cold. From the Investigation File of Fyodor Andronov, it can be found out that although this man was considered a state criminal and accused of stealing the royal treasury, he was kept in the yard of a private person. At the same time, relatives were obliged to take care of his food.

On July 7, the Discussion Council on the History of the Belgorod State National Research University will consider the chapter's doctoral dissertation on the topic "Problems of objectivity in covering Russian history in the second half of the 15th-17th centuries." The Minister published on Wednesday, July 4, an article in "", in which he entered into a discussion about his scientific work. gives the main arguments of Medinsky and the comments of other participants in the discussion.

The head of the Ministry of Culture claims that when evaluating the works of foreigners about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries, he had every right to "take the position of the interests of his country." According to Medinsky, all the chroniclers and learned monks who recorded the events of their time were not objective or impartial: “There is no absolute objectivity at all. Except from the point of view of an alien. Any historian is always a bearer of a certain type of culture, ideas of his circle and his time.

The historian, the minister notes, always remains a hostage of beliefs, although professional ethics and rules require the scientist to strive for objectivity.

"Ideas and myths are also facts"

“What influenced the course of the Great Patriotic War more? The battle itself of the 4th company of political instructor Klochkov near Volokolamsk, destroyed by 28 (or 128?) fighters of 17 (or 10? - what the hell is the difference!) Nazi tanks? Or the same myth-image created by the journalists of the "Red Star"? The image of 28 Panfilovites, forged in the minds of millions? writes Medinsky. According to him, not to see a fact in a myth means to stop being a historian.

The Minister emphasizes that there are no uniquely correct scientific concepts, and truth is born only in the search, in the clash of working versions and hypotheses. There are also no impartial historical works - any recorded event is a reflection in the perception of an eyewitness. Yes, and the approach to the study of history is always personified.

“Admit it: there is no reliable past. For after 5 minutes any event begins to exist as an interpretation. Not to mention 5 centuries. Not to mention 25 versions of 25 witnesses, interpreted by 25 historians with different views,” Medinsky concludes.

Photo: Alexander Natruskin / RIA Novosti

Liberal crusaders

The head of the Ministry of Culture accuses critics of his dissertation (“liberal press, liberal intelligentsia and liberal scientists”) of intolerance: “The classical liberal idea in the modern Euro-Atlantic world has long been transformed into its antipode - absolute intolerance for dissent, readiness with the determination of the Crusaders - by fire and with a sword - to burn out any other opinions.

“If you look at who is involved in the campaign to strip Medinsky of his degree, you will see that these are mostly liberal historians. Liberal history has dominated our historical thought since the 1990s. In the early 2010s, another direction declared itself - state-patriotic. The informal leader of this trend today is Vladimir Medinsky. His work is a blow to a competing current, ”says the historian.

“New ideas in science should be welcomed and dissent should not be suppressed,” he continues. - But history is not only a science, but also part of the worldview, part of the overall picture of the world. And when our worldview changes (and now we are moving away from the liberal one), the picture of the world also changes. When we left the communist idea in the 90s, we immediately abandoned the communist past. Just as the Bolsheviks once abandoned the tsarist past and created their own. The new latest version of the past is being created today by the state-patriotic direction in history with Medinsky at the head.

Monopoly on history

Critics of Medinsky's dissertation, Gerasimov notes, are trying to discredit the minister of culture in order to discredit his ideas. “The Academic Council said that there was no plagiarism there, and only one essentially significant claim remained, which is as follows: Medinsky says that history should be considered from the standpoint of Russia's interests. This position is unacceptable to liberal historians. They believe that this is an ideology, but all theoretical approaches can be called an ideology,” he emphasizes.

The most dangerous, according to Gerasimov, is a monopoly on history: “As soon as we accept one point of view and stick to it, we will have no science. Science is driven by ideas. The ban on certain ideas leads to its degradation.”

Nikolay Starostenkov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor and Head of the Department of the History of the Fatherland at the RSSU, speaks about the importance of pluralism of opinions in history. “Strange statements about the inconsistency of the methodology in the work of Medinsky with some principles - we have already gone through this. We used to have one and only true methodology, from the point of view of which they judged, dressed, chopped. Science is alive only when there is a healthy pluralism of opinions in it. And the establishment of the truth should be decided within the framework of a normal scientific discussion,” he believes.

“Opponents do not dare to engage in scientific discussion”

“Medinsky’s dissertation was defended with us in 2011 at a meeting of the dissertation council, of which I was a member. In addition, I am the head of the department where Medinsky's work was carried out. It fully complies with the requirements of the government decree in force at that time, and therefore the council decided that Medinsky was worthy of conferring the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. My position has not changed since then,” Starostenkov emphasizes.

According to the professor, in any major work written on a very topical topic, there is something that not everyone agrees with. “But this is not a reason to evaluate the dissertation, but for a scientific discussion - to see how justified the positions of the parties are. However, our opponents do not dare to engage in scientific discussion. They propose to consider the application for deprivation of the degree, which will happen on July 7, ”he notes.

"Some of Medinsky's assumptions cause complete bewilderment"

The discussion council, which will consider the work of the Minister of Culture, includes Doctor of Historical Sciences Vitaly Penskoy, who in 2012 criticized his dissertation in the article “Without the skills of a historian.” He expressed doubt that Medinsky had conducted a comprehensive analysis of materials containing value judgments of foreigners about Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. For such work, according to him, it is necessary to have knowledge in politics, jurisprudence, linguistics, philology and economics.

Another critic of the minister’s scientific work, Candidate of Historical Sciences Aleksey Lobin, in his 2012 article “Cave Source Studies,” accused Medinsky of the fact that the minister “prefers not to analyze and compare documents, but to confine himself only to logical reasoning.” Lobin emphasized that some of the theses of the dissertation candidate "cause complete bewilderment."

“Medinsky read several notes of foreigners translated into Russian, noted the contradiction and inconsistency of the information with what he knows, and rushed to expose the “falsifier Herberstein” (Sigismund von Herberstein, an Austrian diplomat, author of works on geography, history and structure of the Russian state - approx. "Tapes.ru"), and at the same time other foreigners, ”wrote Lobin.

On June 19, eight scientists sent a letter to the President of Russia in defense of Medinsky's dissertation. According to the authors of the letter, the official's thesis "represents a new contribution to the development of historical science, as well as the social and political life of modern Russia."

A statement demanding to deprive Medinsky of his academic degree was signed by historians from Dissernet, Konstantin Yerusalimsky, and submitted to the address in September 2016. In their opinion, the dissertation contains factual errors and is generally absurd. At the beginning of October 2016, the complaint was planned to be examined at the Academic Council in UrFU, but the Higher Attestation Commission withdrew it due to violation of the deadlines for consideration. The dissertation materials were handed over to the dissertation council based on the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, however, it is planned to exist in March 2017.

The well-known philologist and publisher D.M. Bulanin in the article “The Spirit of Idle Talk” in 2008 stated the fact of the emergence of “a certain class, a very significant section of Russian book production in recent years, a class consisting of works that are dressed in the form of scientific research, and according to content is very far removed from the humanities in their classical sense. Yes, and from the sciences in general as a special direction of human creative activity.

Author's abstract and separate sections of the text of the dissertation by V.R. ekov” (Moscow, 2011) have already been the subject of detailed attention and analysis by I.V. Karatsuba, A.N. Lobin, V.V. Pensky and other researchers and bloggers. They made reasonable accusations of borrowing from other people's works in the abstract and the "cave" level of work with sources.

V.R. Medinsky claims that the subject of his research is “the problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history by foreigners in the period under review”, that is, the XV-XVII centuries. eka. The dissertation does not explain where such a subject of research came from, in science for a long time there has been another problem - the reliability of news from foreigners about Russia, but it involves the study of ways of transmitting information, comparing originals and translations, and analyzing source information. The search for "objectivity" most often leads V.R. Medinsky to convict the authors of the news about Russia in bias. However, the “subjective nature” of foreigners’ notes revealed by the dissertation (he seriously considers this his achievement) is interpreted as part of an anti-Russian conspiracy that lasted almost two centuries and affected almost all foreigners, without exception, who wrote at least something about Russia. Meanwhile, before Medinsky, of course, it never occurred to any of the historians to arrange a general trial of foreign authors of notes on Russia and without evidence to accuse them of deliberately falsifying their news.

In his dissertation work, V.R. Medinsky did not cope with the initial task, which is required by the problem he posed of studying the entire corpus of foreign notes about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries. ekov. He simply does not know about the existence of the vast majority of news from foreigners. In the most complete American bibliography, compiled by Marshall Poe, there are 638 titles of diplomatic communications, travel descriptions, diaries and memoirs of a stay in Muscovy.

One can compare this figure with the list of used publications of foreigners' notes by V.R. Medinsky of 31 titles (including popular science publications). In addition to the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, V.R. Medinsky does not mention a single large collection that stores lifetime editions of notes by foreigners about Russia, nor “Rossica” in the collection of the Russian National Library, nor the Museum: books of the Russian State Library. It becomes clear that V.R. Medinsky turned to only a few notes of foreigners about Russia, selected them at his own discretion and used those works that were available to the dissertator in Russian.

The main content of the work of V.R. Medinsky is not an analysis of texts, but a biased scourging of foreign authors who wrote about Russia, suspected by the dissertator of a conspiracy to falsify the images of Russian rulers and the whole people. The retelling of historical circumstances, biographies of the authors of foreign news about Russia is based on other people's works. The study is replaced by conjectures, the style of which does not correspond at all with the dissertation research.

The dissertation student consistently "cuts" with Barbaro and Contarini, Herberstein, Staden and Schlichting, Possevino and other authors. Along the way, "goes" to the rulers of different countries, accused of "blackening" (p. 110) the Russian state. A researcher who will get acquainted with the text of the dissertation of V.R. The recipe for the work of V.R. Medinsky was perfectly revealed by the same A.N. Lobin, who wrote about how Medinsky “takes a separate episode from the works of foreigners and compares it with “how it should really be”, and then makes his own verdict - the author of an essay about Russia is telling the truth or not.

The trouble is that if it is excusable for a foreigner to “not understand” something, then the dissertation student himself usually understands even worse what he undertakes to criticize. For example, protesting patriotically against Fletcher's mention of "tyranny" in Russia, V.R. Medinsky concludes: "On the contrary, the turnover of persons holding public office was a sign of democratic traditions." What is being said here should be known only to the dissertator, he does not bother himself with proofs.

Is V.R. Medinsky familiar with the principle of localism, which permeated all appointments to the service, does he understand the problem of kinship and clientele in medieval Russia? As a result, the perception of Fletcher's work in Elizabethan England is misinterpreted. The dissertation student “obtains” (this is a favorite introductory turn in V.R. Medinsky’s vocabulary) “that even in England the content of Fletcher’s work was declared a vicious slander against Russia, its sovereign and Russians.” Ignorance of historiography does a dissertation dissertation a disservice, V.R. Medinsky does not know that the translation of Giles Fletcher’s long-suffering work was censored in our country as early as the middle of the 19th century. The newest "critic" directly continues in this case the line of Count Uvarov - the well-known conductor of the triad "autocracy-Orthodoxy-nationality".

The style of the thesis of V.R. understand history. It is only with bewilderment that one can observe the renewal of such views in relation to the authors of foreign notes about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries. ekov.

They were also indiscriminately accused by V.R. Medinsky of deliberately distorting reality. Every British, Pole, Italian, Greek and Austrian, as the author of the dissertation prefers to write (and there are also residents - sales agents immediately recorded as spies), is opposed by a barrier from the judgments of Medinsky himself. His own views ultimately turn out to be the main criterion of truth in the text of the dissertation, or rather, their pronounced partisanship, because the dissertation candidate is sincerely convinced (of this there is no doubt) that he is at the forefront of the fight against falsifiers of the Russian past.

Most of V.R. Medinsky’s “observations” were made with the positivistic certainty of having knowledge of how everything was “really”. It constantly seems to him that all the bad things were copied from each other by foreigners, in the desire to deliberately distort the bright image of our country, its people, faith and customs. And only V.R. Medinsky managed to uncover this conspiracy, about which most historians, starting with the great V.O. Klyuchevsky, did not even suspect. The set of ideas expressed is not subject to verification, it is based on the faith or, rather, the self-confidence of V.R. Medinsky, so the controversy with his views becomes meaningless.

It is enough to quote a little text from the dissertation of V.R. Medinsky to see their idle verbal emptiness (by no means harmless). In part, it is balanced by numerous everydayisms that create an indestructible comic effect. V.R. Medinsky often tries to convince the reader of the intentional spread of “black myths” about Russia (he has already written entire volumes of popular literature about this). In the event that a “black myth” is discovered, Medinsky immediately switches to retaliatory accusations addressed not only to the authors of writings about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries. ekov, but also to all foreigners, opposing them with ideal, highly moral Russian people:

“Based on the information of the Italian, it turns out that, although the Russian people were prone to drunkenness and idleness, the law issued by the Grand Duke forbade them to dabble and shirk work. As a result, they began to lead an exemplary lifestyle.

“It should be noted that in Russian sources there is no evidence that there were many taverns in Moscow and that the local population dined in them. On the contrary, it is known that everyone went home for dinner and slept after it.

“In fact, in Russia from ancient times, general education schools existed at churches and monasteries.”

“In fact, as already noted, educated people were very respected in Russia.”

“A similar situation can be observed in the chapter on the situation of Russian women. Olearius repeated the data of Herberstein and Petreus that Russian women are prone to swearing with their husbands, like to get drunk and feel sympathy for strangers. For this, their husbands allegedly beat them severely. But they endured and considered the beatings a manifestation of male love.”

“But the Holstein diplomat apparently wanted to present Russia as a more backward country than it actually was. To do this, he even wrote that the Russian people are only now beginning to improve, because they strongly imitate the Germans. As you can see, he could not resist European snobbery towards representatives of a different people.

"An innovation noticed by Olearius should also be considered the fact that the roads in the Russian state have become smooth."

“The departure of the queen presented by Lisek shows that she was becoming an independent public person.”

“The data of the Dane about sodomy was undoubtedly an invention, since all foreigners who had a positive attitude towards Russia wrote that Russian people had an innate aversion to vices.”

“Only foreigners could drink every day, they also wore stockings, which Russian people replaced with socks.”

“But in fact, Russian people, compared to foreigners, were real teetotalers. After all, they were allowed to drink alcohol only a few days a year, on four major church holidays. Foreigners also drank soundly and daily.

Especially V.R. Medinsky “succeeds” in the characteristics of the Russian autocrats, whom he primarily seeks to protect from possible slander. Everyone, of course, knows about Peter I, but few know how Medinsky perceives him: “In the Kremlin, the old royal residence, he refused to live, preferring to spend the night anywhere.”

“Firstly, Peter liked to eat under cannon volleys. Secondly, during the feasts, at his request, they used amusing sulfuric fire, arranged fireworks, and carried bowls with ignited dried tobacco. Thirdly, they were attended by young and beautiful women, specially invited, and persons dressed in costumes of religious ranks. All this fun with the abundant use of wine was called Bacchanalia.

After reading the text of V.R. Medinsky’s dissertation, you begin to clearly understand that it is impossible to call the dissertation work submitted by V.R. Accusing foreign authors of notes about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries of bias. Ekov, the dissertator carefully tried to create the appearance of "objectivity" by manipulating words and facts.

As a result, in a space of more than 400 pages, V.R. Medinsky found himself occupied with substantiating exclusively his own protective views on the history of Russia. And everything ends with “historical lessons” and “scientific and practical recommendations” from Medinsky. In one of these recommendations, he seems to have frankly explained why he wrote the dissertation: “We need a separate state historical propaganda organization. It should deal with the study and preservation of historical heritage, issues of historical memory and historical propaganda. The dissertator believes that this organization should solve counter-propaganda tasks.” As can be seen from the activities of the Russian Historical Society and the assignment of V.R. Medinsky to supervise the process of creating a “single textbook” on the history of Russia, the practical significance of the dissertation was nevertheless appreciated.

1. Bulanin D.M. The spirit of idle talk: (In connection with the publication of the book by A.L. Yurganov “Kill the Demon”). - "Russian literature". 2008. No. 1. P. 105−136. http://bulanin.blogspot.ru
2. Lobin Alexey. Cave source. http://polit.ru/article/2012/03/13/medinsky
3. See: Alexander Gamazin. Inventions of Professor Medinsky // Zvezda. 2012. No. 4